It never ends: Thought police say Apache, Chinook helicopters just as bad as NFL’s Redskins

apache-boeing

You can not be surprised when sharks come after dropping chum in the water and you can not be surprised when the world’s perpetually-offended pundit class screeches louder after each time society acquiesces to its demands. Now that they know the federal government will use its limited time, money, and resources to go after NFL football teams (yes, that’s right, a sports organization), professional whiners see an opportunity to get rid of another great “injustice” — the Apache helicopter and every other military vehicle with a Native American name.

Simon Waxman writes in his Washington Post op-ed:

Even if the NFL and Redskins brass come to their senses and rename the team, a greater symbolic injustice would continue to afflict Indians — an injustice perpetuated not by a football club but by our federal government. …

In the United States today, the names Apache, Comanche, Chinook, Lakota, Cheyenne and Kiowa apply not only to Indian tribes but also to military helicopters. …

Why do we name our battles and weapons after people we have vanquished? For the same reason the Washington team is the Redskins and my hometown Red Sox go to Cleveland to play the Indians and to Atlanta to play the Braves: because the myth of the worthy native adversary is more palatable than the reality — the conquered tribes of this land were not rivals but victims, cheated and impossibly outgunned. …

If the native tribes did not stand a chance, this does not imply lack of resistance or of courage; regardless, it doesn’t much matter in this context. Whatever courage they had, the U.S. military is not heir to it. If honor matters to the members of our armed forces, they will agree.

It’s hard to know where to begin with such a convoluted mess. Were the Hopi and Pueblo Indians “victims” who were “cheated” and possibly “out-gunned” by the Apache and the Comanche? Were the Sioux the “victims” of the Cheyenne? What about the Indian tribes that fell victim to the Aztecs and the Incas? Say what you want about those European “cheaters,” but they didn’t offer their victims up for human sacrifice and eat them with a chimichurri sauce like the Aztecs. Or was it a molé sauce because they were in Mexico?

Why was it perfectly okay for the Indians to slaughter each other and take away land by force, but when Europeans came along and did the same thing it was somehow deemed “cheating”? Instead of looking at history as it really is — bloody — Mr. Waxman pretends that all Native Americans did was gather nuts and berries and live happily ever after until those evil Europeans came along and wrecked the good thing they had going. That story is so much more comforting than the tale of the temple priest who passes out from exhaustion after stabbing his human victims for hours on end, so Waxman goes with what makes him feel good at night.

What truly makes the piece classic is Mr. Waxman’s emotional appeal — if honor matters to the members of our armed forces they’ll agree with him. Obviously they don’t, so we must conclude that Mr. Waxman does not believe members of our armed forces have any honor. What can be more hilarious than a Noam Chomsky-loving academic telling soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that they don’t have honor? Not much.

TWT Apache
My piece for The Washington Times.

With that said, we must pause to note what he’s doing because it speaks to a telling difference between a conservative and a liberal. A conservative thinks Mr. Waxman is just incredibly naive while the liberal thinks that if you disagree with him you have no honor. You are a bad person. You are History’s giver of great symbolic injustices and must be personally and professionally destroyed.

I covered this in my post “How to deal with liberal trolls who hate our military and use gay slurs as personal attacks,” but I’ll say it again: the far left does not like U.S. military personnel. Whenever I say that critics complain, “You’re generalizing!”, to which I say, “That’s because it’s generally true.”

Whether it’s the liberal troll who calls himself “Doug’s Dick Vacuum” (whatever the heck that means) while sharing articles titled “Thanks, I won’t support the troops,” or guys like Mr. Waxman, the truth is self-evident — generally, leftists do not like our military men and women but they were forced to put on a charade after the whole “let’s spit on veterans” thing blew up in their faces after Vietnam. Mr. Waxman can’t spit on veterans these days without getting his teeth knocked out, but he can write Washington Post op-eds that charge the vast majority of the military with having no honor.

As the Redskins name controversy takes twists and turns in the months and years ahead, just remember that it will not end with the Washington Redskins. For the thought police, there is an infinite amount of ideas to control.

Drudge hit for my piece for The Washington Times.
Drudge hits are always nice. Here’s my piece for The Washington Times.